Arguments Against: Guns are only designed to kill?

[Pointman]

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

... the anti-gunners .... are NEVER able to come up with anything more than, "well, learn martial arts..."

 

[Legba]

imported post

Marksmanship is a "martial art" in a literal application of the term.

-ljp

 

[danbus]

imported post

Pointman wrote

My intent in an attack situation is to stop the threat, not to kill someone. If they die, that is an unfortunateconsequence of their actions, not mine.

Word.

Edit: I personally phrase it "my intention is to stop the threat, if they happen to die, it's just a side effect of getting shot".

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[Overtaxed]

imported post

I think my post was meant to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-gun position. When asked a very reasonable question about what alternative to a firearm they think we should use for protection, their answer is either a blank stare, a deflection of the question, or ineffectual self-defense advice.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

I think my post was meant to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-gun position. When asked a very reasonable question about what alternative to a firearm they think we should use for protection, their answer is either a blank stare, a deflection of the question, or ineffectual self-defense advice.

They are self proclaimed pacifists. I just wonder what goes through a pacifist's mind when being attacked. Could they possibly be thinking, "I should have joined the NRA"?

Are they really pacifist like they claim? I was listening to Cam and Co. one night and a guest was talking about a late night debate he and another guy were having on a show with an anti-gunner. When the debate was over, she asked if they could walk her to her car. They did so and then asked "Why?". She said she assumed they werecarrying and this is a bad part of town. They assured her they were not and this is D.C., it would be illegal.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Venator wrote:

What if they want your life, are we supposed to just give them our life?

'They' the left has demonstrated that they hold life very cheaply even to being a sometimes inconvenience.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Venator wrote:

What if they want your life, are we supposed to just give them our life?

'They' the left has demonstrated that they hold life very cheaply even to being a sometimes inconvenience.

Oh so true!

 

[Aegis]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Something I hear or readoften from the anti-gun (or otherwise ignorant) people is that "guns/assault weapons/handgunsare only designed to kill (people)." It was stated in theFX show "30 Days" this Tuesday and the pro-gun guy didn't have a good response if I remember correctly.

How do you argue against something like that?

I would tend to point out the 2+ million defensive gun uses in the US without even firing a shot, but what if they don't believe the studies?It would be hard for me to sufficiently argue that a firearm is designed to "defend" and not "attack."

Or perhaps a comparison of other objects and their "intended" uses? A gun is simply designed to fire a projectile, and can be used for good or evil, the same as a computer is simply designed to move bits of data around, and can be used for both as well? Pencils make lines on paper, cars move along carrying people & cargo, etc.?

I would like to know if anyone has had a good comeback for this that actually seemed to change someone's belief that "Guns are only designed to kill."

Thanks,

...Orygunner...

Only if they are made properly......:dude:

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

You are correct. That was Sampson. Sorry.

Judges 15:15-16 NIV

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. Then Sampson said,

"Witha donkey's jawbone

I have made donkeys of them.

With a donkeys jawbone

I have killed a thousand men."

Moral of the story: don't piss off Samson.

Could make for an interesting open-carry. Though it might be hard finding a retention holster for a J-frame donkey's jawbone...

:celebrate

Er, carry on...

 

[Darren Stevens]

imported post

I do get annoyed by the anti-gunners who think that you get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the problem! Once invented you cannot simply wish guns away, we have a gun ban here in England, yet gun crime has gone up! As stated in previous posts a gun doesn't kill a person by itself, it needs someone behind it to pull the trigger!

With intent any item could be used to kill a person! On September 11th 2001 almost 3000 innocent people were killed by evil b*stards armed with boxcutters, not a gun in sight.

Guns are not the problem, regretably there is evil in this world, and guns do give people the opportunity to protect themselves, and their loved ones.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Darren Stevens wrote:

I do get annoyed by the anti-gunners who think that you get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the problem! Once invented you cannot simply wish guns away, we have a gun ban here in England, yet gun crime has gone up! As stated in previous posts a gun doesn't kill a person by itself, it needs someone behind it to pull the trigger!

With intent any item could be used to kill a person! On September 11th 2001 almost 3000 innocent people were killed by evil b*stards armed with boxcutters, not a gun in sight.

Guns are not the problem, regretably there is evil in this world, and guns do give people the opportunity to protect themselves, and their loved ones.

+1